Freedom of Information Requests: Why Getting the Scope Right Matters

Woodhouse v Information Commissioner & North Yorkshire Police [2025] UKFTT 1528 (GRC)

Mr Woodhouse submitted a Freedom of Information request on 23 September 2023 to North Yorkshire Police. Within the request, he asked for copies of correspondence the police had received from Potto Parish Council during 2023. The request specifically concerned communications linked to several agenda items in the Council’s January – May 2023 meeting minutes.

The police acknowledged holding the information but refused disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Section 40(2) confirms that any information that constitutes personal data (of anyone other than the person applying under the FOIA) is exempt information and should not be disclosed.

Unhappy with the response, Mr Woodhouse lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO issued a Decision Notice in June 2024 and concluded that the police were entitled to withhold the information under Sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. This section confirms that information is exempt from disclosure if it does or is likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Mr Woodhouse did not agree with the ICO’s Decision Notice and therefore lodged an appeal with the Tribunal. In support of his appeal, he submitted that the ICO’s application of the exemption was based upon the police’s investigation into the allegations against Mr Woodhouse linked to events in 2022 and not in relation to the 2023 correspondence actually requested.

The Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal had the benefit of an open hearing bundle and a closed hearing bundle, containing the withheld information. They started by identifying the scope of the request. They concluded that Mr Woodhouse was asking for copies of correspondence from the police to the Council during 2023, specifically emails and information sent by a person or persons to the parishioners or the Council in January, February, March, April and May 2023 which the Council forwarded on to the police in those months and which were the subject of an investigation by the police.

The question for the police to address was therefore, what correspondence they had that fit within the above description.

When assessing whether the police had addressed the correct question and therefore the lawfulness of the response, the Tribunal reviewed and analysed the information contained within the closed bundle.

The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the ICO had erred in deciding that the police was entitled to rely on Sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA in responding to the request.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal set aside the ICO’s Decision Notice and substituted its own. Within the substituted Decision Notice, the police was asked to do conduct a fresh search for correspondence actually relating to the scope of the request. Thereafter for the police to issue a lawful FOIA response either confirming or denying the existence of the correspondence in question (and thereafter disclosing the same) or relying upon any relevant exemption.

Comment

This case is a reminder of the importance of correctly identifying the scope of a FOIA request before responding and seeking to rely upon exemptions.